"Unconstitutional Application of 35 U.S.C. §101 by the U.S. Supreme Cou" by Sherry Knowles and Anthony Prosser

Home > RIPL > Vol. 18 > Iss. 2 (2019)

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Article Title

Unconstitutional Application of 35 U.S.C. §101 by the U.S. Supreme Court, 18 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 144 (2018)

Authors

Sherry Knowles
Anthony Prosser

Abstract

“A or B” is inconsistent with “A not B.” This describes why the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the U.S. Supreme Court is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, and thus unconstitutional. This article tracks the legislative history of patent eligibility from 1790 to 2011, and the parallel but inconsistent U.S. Supreme Court case law during this period. In following its own case law, the Court has shown extraordinary judicial activism, has penciled out two words of the federal statute (“or discovers”), and has penciled a word out of the U.S. Constitution (“discoveries”).

Recommended Citation

Sherry Knowles & Anthony Prosser, Unconstitutional Application of 35 U.S.C. §101 by the U.S. Supreme Court, 18 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 144 (2018)

Download

Included in

Intellectual Property Law Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons

COinS